Marc Ambinder lays out a two-part marker: bi-partisanship won’t lead to health care reform and Congress won’t pass universal health care. He writers:
If universal health care passes–and I don’t think it will–it’ll be because of raw, Democratic muscle not because of some bipartisan lovefest. The dilemmas over the current plans can’t be easily ameliorated with negotiation and compromise. Either you’re for what it takes to get to universal care–a lot of money, some kind of cost control–or you’re not. That’s not going to be easily smoothed over in bipartisan lunches when the Democrats have decades of pent up desire for health care built up and Republicans still have an allergic aversion to government intervention in the marketplace and more spending that isn’t tax cuts.
The lask of affordable health insurance was my sophomore or junior year high school policy debate topic. And that topic, more than homlessness or the environment or whatever my final topic was (wow, do I really not remember?), led to the most outlandish claims — on both sides — that I ever saw high school kids and their coaches and briefing books imagine. For that reason alone, not to mention the push from the Left already leveraged at Obama on this issue, I intuitively agree with Aminder about the “bi-partisanship won’t work” piece.
I’m not so sure, though, about the “not gonna happen” part of his argument. The will from Obama seems to be there, and there’s a dedicated groundswell of support on this issue as well. That is a recipe for disaster for those who oppose it.
Thoughts?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political editor at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, The American Prospect, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
It’ll happen, not least because everyone knows that the current system isn’t financially sustainable. And not in the remote sense in which people say that Social Security isn’t sustainable, but in a much more immediate and urgent way.
Given the fracture between Democratic factions on this issue, Republican intransigence on anything that will raise taxes, the President’s collapsing support, and the spreading skepticism that his proposal will actually accomplish the goal he set for it, healthcare reform is not going to happen this year.
I suspect it won’t happen in the coming years either as the President’s support continues to weaken and members of Congress lose focus during the midterm election season. Likelihood of passage becomes even more remote after the midterms, where Democrats are expected to lose several seats.
In short, if the President cannot pull it off now, when his popularity is at its peak, he cannot pull it off at all.
I think overall Obama will get some things accomplished simply because he’s far smarter than anyone gives him credit for. His overall personality is a calm, outside observer who acts as an arbitrator.
He seems to like taking a phased approach to most issues. Rather than taking all the M&M’s out of the bowl, he takes them out slowly over a course of time, such that most people won’t realize what he’s done.
The LGBT reaction to some of his “mis-steps” of late, provide such cover that no one gave a damn about his memo regarding federal workers and domestic partnership benefits.
He’ll do something similar with health care.
Its almost like a layered approach to issues, which may also explain why he tackles so many at a time, rather than finish just one project and move onto the next…he knows that its best to get them started now and work on them bit by bit over time. Almost like creating a dinner so that all the dishes will be warm and ready at the same time.
I’m on the fence over whether we’ll see any changes to our health care system. Could go either way if some Republicans persist in being stalwart just because and some Democrats persist in focusing just on funding rather than in addressing the root cause of our health care woes.
In my humble opinion, you’ll need some back room maneuvers to get things moving. I’ve seen no effort to get medical insurers to comply with what they state about patient rights on their SEC filings despite the increasing numbers of Americans becoming disabled due to medical mistakes. I know, because I am one of the statistics.
I became disabled at age 50 because private doctors (Cigna service providers) failed to take the time to read and analyze positive test results. In contrast to their agreements with Cigna, internists delegated responsibility for my care to specialists, who each referred me to other specialists because I had a systemic infection, affecting all of my body parts. No one could decide who was responsible for diagnosing and treating me. My experiences are detailed in a series of blog posts at http://doctorblue.wordpress.com.
In short, until the government starts enforcing its existing laws to get medical insurers to do what they are legally obligated to do, all this talk is for naught. If there is no enforcement, it doesn’t matter what Act is passed. If there was enforcement of existing laws regulating insurance companies, the penalties collected could help pay for health care improvements.
Columnists make their money by spitting, even if it is into the wind, and so don’t have an incentive to not stir things up. It suits the columnist to drive attention to his writing, but his analysis is flawed. David Brooks wrote a far better piece in the NY Times called “You Be Obama” on Wednesday describing how this will all play out, and I think he is dead on.
The political calculation is different than it was years ago. The two senators from Maine are on the edge of their seats, both are under the gun by changes in New England to seem to hew closely to GOP orthodoxy on “free markets are always the best”, and even with a few defections on the Democratic side, there are the votes to pass a strong bill with effective coverage.
Universal health care doesn’t have to look like one thing, and the US isn’t suddenly going to switch to a system like Canada’s or Sweden’s, but more realistically to something like France’s, with public and private entities working in tandem and with insurance being handled by either co-ops or divisions of existing insurance companies, but under tighter regulation. Republicans will still go for that since you still get choices and Dems get the holy of holies, coverage for all. What will matter is in how much coverage is required, but even there there is room for agreement.
Columnists make their money by spitting, even if it is into the wind, and so don’t have an incentive to not stir things up. It suits the columnist to drive attention to his writing, but his analysis is flawed. David Brooks wrote a far better piece in the NY Times called “You Be Obama” on Wednesday describing how this will all play out, and I think he is dead on.
The political calculation is different than it was years ago. The two senators from Maine are on the edge of their seats, both are under the gun by changes in New England to seem to hew closely to GOP orthodoxy on “free markets are always the best”, and even with a few defections on the Democratic side, there are the votes to pass a strong bill with effective coverage.
Universal health care doesn’t have to look like one thing, and the US isn’t suddenly going to switch to a system like Canada’s or Sweden’s, but more realistically to something like France’s, with public and private entities working in tandem and with insurance being handled by either co-ops or divisions of existing insurance companies, but under tighter regulation. Republicans will still go for that since you still get choices and Dems get the holy of holies, coverage for all. What will matter is in how much coverage is required, but even there there is room for agreement.
BTW I love your blog!